Report on the 127Th Annual Meeting of the American Historical Association (AHA) (New Orleans, Louisiana, January 3-6, 2013)

1 ［ Report ］ Report on the 127th Annual Meeting of the American Historical Association (AHA) (New Orleans, Louisiana, January 3-6, 2013) David Murchie The 127th Annual Meeting of the AHA offered a variety of seminars and presenters as well as an extensive line-up of special activities. As always, there was a wide variety of dis- cussions, plenary sessions, special meetings of AHA-affiliated groups, film screenings, et al, and it was not difficult for this participant to find several sessions each day that were of sub- stantial interest. For lovers of jazz, the venue was of particular interest this year, New Orleans being historically one of the cradles of jazz music in the United States (US). In this report, I shall offer brief summaries and a few critical remarks on the sessions I was able to attend. 1. “Blackouts : Using Energy Regimes to Narrate Place, Race, and Ethnicity” 1) Steven Stoll, Fordham University – “Subsistence Wages : The Political Ecology of Dis- possession” Speaking of the historical transition from an agricultural to an industrial economy, Stoll treated the issue of what it means to be modern. One possible response to this question is that “moderns” do not raise their own food. For example, the pre-Adam Smith political economist James Stuart did not consider peasants as part of society because they only produced their own food (an unsocialized idea). Stool argued, however, that this is a false impression. In fact, gardens often support people, as they did on subsistence home- steads. Such subsistence activities were not just some past reality ; on the contrary, even in the capitalistic revolution, people still produced their own food, in some cases leading to con- flicts between agrarians (who produced much food) and capitalists. In the early stages of capitalism, people began to work for wages, and poverty came to be a serious social issue. Homelessness was rampant and a new kind of “household” pau- perism began to develop. When wages were not sufficient to pay for family needs, families made up the difference by producing their own food. Faced with declining standards of living and more poverty, gardens were rightly touted. Gardens were also developed outside — 17 — 2 of a family’s living area. This was beneficial for labor, for when laborers went on strike, they would still have food to eat. Though the arrangement often did not work well, people nevertheless raised their own food while working, for example, in a factory. Early on, subsistence farming and market producing farming were adversaries. Interestingly enough however, subsistence development would much later become the wave of the future. 2) Mark Fiege – Colorado State University—Fort Collins – “Crude Freedom : Fossil Fuels, the Great Migration, and American Democracy” Fiege began by expressing his disappointment concerning the lack of attention that has been given to the important historical effect of hydro-carbon energies on democracy. Sug- gesting that political results can differ depending on the energy sources involved, he explained a few fundamental differences between the political ramifications of coal as opposed to those of oil. On the one hand, coal production brought people together to work, leading to the formation and growth of labor unions. Oil, however, could be produced with fewer workers and, consequently, there was less pressure on oil workers to form unions. Fiege pointed out that in earlier years, land ownership by blacks kept them tied to the land. However, with the onset of the hydro-carbon age, there was greater spatial mobility and workers could spread out to work in different coal plants. As a result, their social and political power was diluted. Oil made possible transportation that enabled blacks to move to other locations. A kind of “carbon democracy” made it possible for activists to protest unjust attitudes and practices like the Jim Crow laws. Similarly, whites reacted to new expressions of black freedom and mobility by moving from urban areas and commuting to their jobs. 3) Neil M. Maher, Rutgers University-Newark and New Jersey Institute of Technology – “Spaceship Earth : The Urban Crisis and NASA’s War on Poverty” (Mr. Maher was absent so his paper was presented by session chairperson, Ellen Stroud.) Maher compared the different referents behind the symbol “spaceship earth” as that concept has been understood in different ways by NASA and Ralph Abernathy’s Poor Peo- ples Campaign in the 1960s. NASA’s understanding involved the development of environmental control subsystems that would support the production and use of NASA rockets (e.g., the Apollo) and the recycling of natural resources to that end. Abernathy offered a contrary view that was critical of the billions of dollars spent on rockets and compared these expenditures with what was spent on meeting the needs of the poor, and especially their need for good, public housing. As a result of the call of civil rights’ activists for boycotts to protest the space race, NASA was forced to rethink its position. NASA began to use space technology to address environmental and social problems particularly in urban areas. It formed an alliance with the government department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and began a program called “Operation Breakthrough,” the purpose of which was to produce better housing environments. Maher concluded by pointing out that as a result of pressure from Abernathy-type activists and civil rights movements, Apollo program technology was utilized to help the poor. — 18 — Report on the 127th Annual Meeting of the American Historical Association (AHA) (New Orleans, Louisiana, January 3-6, 2013) 3 In a comment following the presentation, Andrew Wiese remarked critically that NASA was treating social problems with technological means rather than, for example, following an approach like Abernathy’s which would have involved efforts grounded in human relations. 2. “God and Mammon : The Politics of Religion and Commerce in Mid-Twentieth-Century America” 1. Kevin M. Kruse, Princeton University – “Freedom under God : Corporations, Christi- anity, and the Revolt against the New Deal” Kruse offered a short history of the idea of a “nation under God,” a phrase found in Lincoln’s Gettysburg address and which was later, in the 1950s, inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to distinguish the US from “godless Communism.” In fact, the idea of national freedom under God was an idea that developed for domestic reasons. The idea arose in the 1930s and 1940s as a response to the idea of free enterprise. Kruse cited the work of a pastor of an influential church that was attended by many businessmen. The pastor started a group called “Spiritual Mobilization” that opposed the New Deal and saw the welfare state as a perversion of Christ’s teaching. The main message of Christ, they argued, was salvation. The group stressed free enterprise and saw Christianity and capitalism as intertwined with each other (one should spread one and spend the other). Using the expression “freedom under God,” the group feared socialization of major aspects of American society. They began a radio program and also sponsored a sermon contest. In 1952 the “freedom under God” theme became a part of the annual Presidential prayer breakfast. At this time, many people saw America as a Christian nation. 2. Darren Grem, University of Mississippi - “Incorporating Conviction : J. Howard Pew, Christianity Today, and the Business of Evangelical Culture” Grem spoke of the close relationship between Christianity and free enterprise, the lat- ter which was a guiding factor in the development of evangelical Christianity in the US, with special focus on the role of J. Howard Pew and the magazine Christianity Today (CT). Business leaders like Pew shaped evangelical culture through their stress on the important connection between “sound” theology and “sound” business. They opposed col- lectivism and combined faith with free enterprise. They opposed the Christian liberalism of the Christian Century. Pew saw publishing as a good way to spread his gospel of Christi- anity and economics. He saw liberty and Christianity as interdependent and had a disdain for the more ecumenical National Council of Churches (NCC). Pew was supported by the widely known evangelist, Billy Graham, and the magazine supported Graham in his evange- listic outreach. A close colleague of Pew’s, viz., L. Nelson Bell, sought an independent voice to lead CT, and Carl F. H. Henry was chosen as the magazine’s first editor-in- chief. CT was unlike other popular magazines. Its covers gave the impression that it was the magazine for evangelical Christians. Its editorial reception was good, but the magazine’s reception by advertisers was not. The survival of CT depended a lot upon Pew and — 19 — 4 other “movers and shakers” in the business world. Social and economic conservatism were hallmarks of the magazine. Bell used the magazine as a pulpit to argue against the “sexual obsession” of a nation that was slipping into degeneracy. Pew died in 1971 and, as Gem comments, Pew probably would not have been pleased with CT’s later focus on social issues such as poverty, evangelical feminism, et al. 3. Darren T. Dochuk, Washington University in St. Louis – “Go, Sell Thy Oil” : Evangelical Protestantism and Petro-Politics in Cold War America” Dochuk began with a discussion of a famous evangelical movie entitled, “Oiltown, USA.” In the movie, Lance Manning, an oil man, after an oil explosion, experienced a crisis conversion after attending a Billy Graham revival meeting. As a born again Christian, Manning now saw his wealth as a way to help God’s work. The movie set attendance records, surpassing those of another popular Christian movie, viz., Mr. Texas, the showing of which led to 100,000 conversions.

Load more